Qalaai Zanist Scientific Journal (QZSJ) is committed to ensuring that all submitted articles undergo a rigorous, unbiased, and transparent double-blind peer review process. Our peer review process is designed to assess the quality, originality, and scientific merit of the work while maintaining ethical standards. Below is an outline of the peer review steps and roles involved:
Author Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system, ensuring all required documents are included (e.g., cover letter, manuscript, figures, and supplementary materials).
Initial Screening: Upon receipt, the editorial team performs an initial screening to ensure the manuscript adheres to the journal's scope and submission guidelines. This includes checking for compliance with formatting requirements, plagiarism detection, and alignment with the journal's thematic areas.
If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to an Editor based on the subject matter and expertise of the editor. The editor is responsible for evaluating whether the manuscript warrants full peer review.
Reviewer Selection: The editor selects two or more expert peer reviewers from a pool of qualified scientists. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and previous contributions to the field.
Reviewer Invitation: Reviewers are invited via email to assess the manuscript. They are asked to evaluate the paper for:
Originality and scientific significance.
Methodological rigor and appropriateness of the experimental design.
Clarity of writing and coherence of ideas.
Relevance to the journal's scope.
Reviewer Confidentiality: Reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process. Any conflicts of interest must be disclosed before acceptance.
Peer Review: The reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide feedback within a specified timeframe (usually 2–4 weeks). Their comments are detailed and aimed at improving the manuscript's scientific and editorial quality.
Reviewer's Recommendations: Reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:
Accept: The manuscript is accepted as-is (rare).
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires small changes (e.g., clarifications, minor adjustments).
Major Revision: Substantial revisions are needed (e.g., experimental improvements, methodological changes).
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards for publication.
Editor’s Decision: Based on the feedback from the reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding the manuscript’s status. The decisions are communicated to the authors, along with the reviewers' comments and suggestions for revisions.
Revisions and Resubmission: Authors are given a set amount of time to revise their manuscript according to reviewer feedback. After resubmission, the manuscript may be sent back to the reviewers for further evaluation.
Final Acceptance: Once all necessary revisions have been made, and the manuscript meets the editorial standards, the paper is accepted for publication.
Publication: The article is then queued for publication in the journal, where it undergoes final formatting, proofreading, and typesetting before being made available to the public.
Open Peer Review: In line with our commitment to transparency, the names of the reviewers and their comments will be made available to the authors after publication unless reviewers choose to remain anonymous.
Ethical Standards: The peer review process at QZSJ adheres to the highest ethical standards, as outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We ensure that conflicts of interest are disclosed, and any unethical behavior (e.g., data manipulation, plagiarism) is addressed promptly.
Confidentiality: All reviewers and editors involved in the peer review process are required to maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript's content, as well as any personal details of the authors or reviewers.